Bring back the draft, cries Young ALP (1 Viewer)

[ediisjoz]

Gay.

Gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay. No, i refuse. In years 9&10 at my school you need to do Community service - a minimum of 10 hours each year. It's gay. So is conscription.

 

[erawamai]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...ational-service/2006/01/06/1136387627993.html

It's community service and it will be voluntary.

 

[Wolfowitz]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...ational-service/2006/01/06/1136387627993.html

It's community service and it will be voluntary.

As it stands the YL model for community service is crap. As if schools have enough time in the curriculum to organise 'community service'. They'd have to dump something from the secondary curriculum. LIKE WHAT? Maths? Science? Health? History? Citizenship? It's already full enough.

*note - To anyone who'll respond with "OH, BUT WE CAN CREATE SOME DEPARTMENT TO MANAGE THE KIDDIES!", you're lame. It will never happen. Teachers seem to be the buckstop for all the responsibilities of children *

Also, as soon as you consider that there's only so much 'community service' one can do on school grounds, more teachers are keeling over at the magic N word: NEGLIGENCE. Young kids + tools = dangerous.

Lastly, who the fuck will pay for it? Believe it or not, community service only barely breaks even. Even with the adults working for free, equipment is expensive. That's not even accounting for the poor quality of children's work. I say children because they'll have to be older than 14 and 9 months - community-held legal working age, and younger than 17 - HSC.

As I said before, people are taking this too seriously. It will never get off the ground, it's only a media stunt.

P.S - I love how the Salvation Army say they ALL agree to it. Military dicipline serves them well

 

[Gooba]

If this policy is put into force AND there is a military component ( which I think is highly doubtful) then rest assured that those who opt for military service WONT be put into any form of combat AT ALL. UNDER AGE PEOPLE ARNT GOING TO FIGHT. THe most it possobly could be would be basic army training and team building.

 

[absolution*]

HEY KIDS
VOTE FOR THE GREENS!​

 

[gerhard]

more like hey kids it doesnt matter what you think because everyone who would be effected by this cant vote

 

[Captain Gh3y]

God forbid someone in this day and age should ever have to do something they didn't feel like! How "gay"! Don't they know we have 'rights'? RIGHTS!

 

[absolution*]

.. because then society will be so shit, everyone will be needing to receive welfare, not participate in it.

Yeah because war, greed, consumerism and environmental degradation make society such a dandy place to live.

:rofl:

 

[Jiga]

Ah, yes, it does, and there is no need to roll your eyes. Try clicking on the actual link that calculon posted rather than the corrupted line of text that is contained within your post.

Ah I still don’t get the point of it, I read the words down the side, how does that relate to my original post? (Educate Me Please )

All I said was that my High School had conducted programs where for two weeks we had to do community service at numerous places…. Like hostels, special schools, community centres etc.

As it stands the YL model for community service is crap. As if schools have enough time in the curriculum to organise 'community service'. They'd have to dump something from the secondary curriculum. LIKE WHAT? Maths? Science? Health? History? Citizenship? It's already full enough.

My school managed as above. Although one thing that is unclear to me, how long is this community service going to go for? Surely it wont be all year for each student, has it actually been stated yet or are people just jumping to conclusions and whinging about having to help the community?

there is no need to roll your eyes

Ok

 

[withoutaface]

Yeah because war, greed, consumerism and environmental degradation make society such a dandy place to live.

:rofl:

Why do you want higher wages for workers when 99.99% of them can already afford the basic neccessities, when more disposable income would only fuel the consumerism that you so despise?

 

[gerhard]

I thought Liberal party policy was that more money for the rich would fuel the economy better than more money for the poor.


Keep in mind that I know little about economic workings.

 

[absolution*]

Why do you want higher wages for workers when 99.99% of them can already afford the basic neccessities, when more disposable income would only fuel the consumerism that you so despise?

Are you confusing the Labor Party with the Greens? The last time I checked worker's wages were not a core policy of the Greens. However, workers rights are. When it comes down to it, the Greens arent not so much in favour of negotiating higher wages as Labor is, rather, they believe in redistributive practises (as evident through their stance on corporate taxation) that diminish corporate greed. Essentially, following Marx, they believe in granting wages which equate to utility served and produced. If this means higher wages, given the widening discrepancy between wages and corporate profits, than so be it.

 

[absolution*]

I thought Liberal party policy was that more money for the rich would fuel the economy better than more money for the poor.


Keep in mind that I know little about economic workings.

Yes, but you see, the Liberal Party makes no effort to disguise the fact that they are the party for business in Australia. Whilst this comes at a disservice for the Australian people, it keeps the economy strong! :rofl:

 

[withoutaface]

Yes, but you see, the Liberal Party makes no effort to disguise the fact that they are the party for business in Australia. Whilst this comes at a disservice for the Australian people, it keeps the economy strong! :rofl:

And I suppose high unemployment and theft of people's earnings are doing a service to the Australian people?

 

[absolution*]

And I suppose high unemployment and theft of people's earnings are doing a service to the Australian people?

Not touching my other response eh? you = :burn: ??

Not exactly sure what you mean here though. Theft of people's earnings can quite clearly come under the core policy of the Liberal party who actively and continuingly keeping the minimum wage as low as possible. Sure a 13% increase in real wages is great. But what is not outlined is that the minimum wage certainly doesnt not follow this upward trend.

Regarding unemployment, forcing disableds and aged people back into work through decreasing assistance is sure to bring down the unemployment rate. As is decreasing family and unemployment assistance rates. But it sure will put in a dent into that large mass of current account deficit which has increased substantially since 1996. So well done. And dont even get me started on super-annuation... :rofl:

 

[withoutaface]

Not touching my other response eh? you = :burn: ??

Not exactly sure what you mean here though. Theft of people's earnings can quite clearly come under the core policy of the Liberal party who actively and continuingly keeping the minimum wage as low as possible. Sure a 13% increase in real wages is great. But what is not outlined is that the minimum wage certainly doesnt not follow this upward trend.

Regarding unemployment, forcing disableds and aged people back into work through decreasing assistance is sure to bring down the unemployment rate. As is decreasing family and unemployment assistance rates. But it sure will put in a dent into that large mass of current account deficit which has increased substantially since 1996. So well done. And dont even get me started on super-annuation... :rofl:

The aged in future should contribute to their own retirement through super, and not expect any safety net from the government because they mismanage their funds during their working life.
Secondly, private charity can more than cater for the disabled (in America $241 billion is given annually to charity, and this figure would increase significantly if taxes were slashed to the basic necessity of protection and a few other things, similar figures would apply for Australia, too).
Liberal party policy is that people should be paid the market rate for their labour. If they believe they are being theived of their earnings they are more than welcome to:
a) start their own business, if they believe it is so easy to do and hence business owners shouldn't receive much of the profit
b) form workers' collectives, but ones which have no special exemptions under the law.
If a poor man came up to me in the street and mugged me, would this be considered theft? Yes it would.
What if a police officer did it and then gave the money to the poor man? Same deal.
Is the redistribution of income through taxes any different to this scenario? Of course not.

You also fail to address the fact that while, yes, some people that need special assistance are on welfare, there are also huge numbers who are perfectly capable of working but choose not to. Why not just establish a system whereby the aged (for the time being) are supported via taxes and the disabled are supported by the massive amount of private charity?

 

[Wooz]

I just got my young labour membership pack *burns it*, young liberals here i come.

 

[withoutaface]

Welcome aboard.

 

[SashatheMan]

wtf is young ALP

 

[withoutaface]

The youth wing of the Labor party.